how does someone 'act' guilty, nitro? and 'so there you go' is your confirmation of said guilt?
Fox news. enter at your own risk.
- Thread starter nitro harley
- Start date
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Sky,
I have to go to Hilo this morning and I am hung over so I will get back to you later today. Have a good day.
drive safe.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Fox news reports. Go Bernie Go. I am starting to think he has a chance now!
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4303681023001/why-hillary-does-not-have-the-dem-nomination-locked-down/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4303681023001/why-hillary-does-not-have-the-dem-nomination-locked-down/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Maybe when cell phones and Emails disappear and are deleted and people take the fifth when asked about public record. That could be seen as an admission of guilt. And an administration that doesn't give a crap about helping with stall tactics for years when these actions could of been what helped BarryO get elected.
Let me ask you Sky, are you OK with the IRS helping one party stay in power over the other when some day the other side will have the power to do the same things? Like destroy computers and phones that are public property and public record.
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
penis lips. 
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
be soft, madre.penis lips.
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
failrepeat.Stfu kkkynes.
again.
more googles and huddles brah. crying for ip roulette may help. withthe circle jerk that is.
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
i go hard son. gargle first next time.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Fox News Reports. This is some good commentary from Neil about political coverage from the media, and it could be why Fox is the ,most trusted news source with the most viewers. imo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4319354361001/recent-coverage-of-gop-presidential-candidates-sparks-debate/?#sp=show-clips
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4319354361001/recent-coverage-of-gop-presidential-candidates-sparks-debate/?#sp=show-clips
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So you're against the 5th amendment?
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Are public cell phones and computers protected by the 5Th amendment? , or is it only when their lips are flapping?
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Fox News Reports. I am glad we did not lose our health care again.
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
Published June 25, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook942 Twitter460 livefyre3989 Email Print
NOW PLAYING
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld ObamaCare subsidies nationwide, in the second major court victory for President Obama on his signature health care law.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that subsidies are valid even in states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges.
A ruling against the administration would have threatened subsidies worth millions in nearly three-dozen states and imperiled the program itself. For months, though, the administration said it had no back-up plans, confident the Supreme Court would rule in its favor.
The Supreme Court previously upheld the law's individual mandate in 2012, in a 5-4 decision. This time, the justices said the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Conservative-leaning justices, though, issued a scathing dissent to the decision, referencing the several times the high court has had to rule on the health law.
"We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The challenge devised by opponents of the law relied on four words -- established by the state -- in the more than 900-page law. The passage technically said subsidies were for those exchanges established by the state.
The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are, therefore, ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal Healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government.
In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.
But the majority opinion effectively said Congress intended the subsidies to be available for all.
"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner," Roberts wrote. "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
He added: "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."
Scalia wrote that if that's the case, "words no longer have meaning."
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.
Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.
The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
Published June 25, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook942 Twitter460 livefyre3989 Email Print
NOW PLAYING
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld ObamaCare subsidies nationwide, in the second major court victory for President Obama on his signature health care law.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that subsidies are valid even in states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges.
A ruling against the administration would have threatened subsidies worth millions in nearly three-dozen states and imperiled the program itself. For months, though, the administration said it had no back-up plans, confident the Supreme Court would rule in its favor.
The Supreme Court previously upheld the law's individual mandate in 2012, in a 5-4 decision. This time, the justices said the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Conservative-leaning justices, though, issued a scathing dissent to the decision, referencing the several times the high court has had to rule on the health law.
"We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The challenge devised by opponents of the law relied on four words -- established by the state -- in the more than 900-page law. The passage technically said subsidies were for those exchanges established by the state.
The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are, therefore, ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal Healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government.
In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.
But the majority opinion effectively said Congress intended the subsidies to be available for all.
"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner," Roberts wrote. "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
He added: "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."
Scalia wrote that if that's the case, "words no longer have meaning."
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.
Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.
The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
WAIT...are you not one that was constantly bitching about Obama care. What FOX told you how fucked you were going to be if it was reversed. Obama keeps winning and owning you.Fox News Reports. I am glad we did not lose our health care again.
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
Published June 25, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook942 Twitter460 livefyre3989 Email Print
NOW PLAYING
Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld ObamaCare subsidies nationwide, in the second major court victory for President Obama on his signature health care law.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that subsidies are valid even in states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges.
A ruling against the administration would have threatened subsidies worth millions in nearly three-dozen states and imperiled the program itself. For months, though, the administration said it had no back-up plans, confident the Supreme Court would rule in its favor.
The Supreme Court previously upheld the law's individual mandate in 2012, in a 5-4 decision. This time, the justices said the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Conservative-leaning justices, though, issued a scathing dissent to the decision, referencing the several times the high court has had to rule on the health law.
"We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The challenge devised by opponents of the law relied on four words -- established by the state -- in the more than 900-page law. The passage technically said subsidies were for those exchanges established by the state.
The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are, therefore, ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal Healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government.
In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.
But the majority opinion effectively said Congress intended the subsidies to be available for all.
"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner," Roberts wrote. "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."
He added: "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."
Scalia wrote that if that's the case, "words no longer have meaning."
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.
Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.
The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
let me ask you nitro..what do you mean by helping 'to stay in power'?..let me tell ya something..they can take a hard drive and recover basically everything even damaged..level 1-3 recoveries..FACT..stop listening to FOX..it's rotting your brain along with fat from the spam you eat.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Wheres the info then? And I cut way back on the spam. I am eating Ono mostly instead of spam. I am going Ahi fishing tomorrow and if I get one I am going to try making Ahi Poke. I have really started liking raw fish with greens and wasabi and soy sauce for dipping.
where's the info, nitro? maybe? might? think? possibly?..get back to me with FACTS..please.
sushi is awesome for you!..have some brown rice with too.
